Supreme Court clarifies promotion eligibility for ad-hoc engineers: Siraj Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: December 13, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1105

Judges: S.A. Bobde (Chief Justice of India), B.R. Gavai J., Surya Kant J.

Can prior service as an ad-hoc employee be considered for promotion after regularization? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a service matter concerning a Junior Engineer’s promotion to Assistant Engineer. The court clarified the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, emphasizing that if an initial appointment was made through a proper selection process, the period of service should be counted for promotion, even if there were some procedural irregularities. This judgment has significant implications for ad-hoc employees seeking career advancement.

The bench comprised of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

The appellant, Siraj Ahmad, was appointed as a Junior Engineer on an ad-hoc basis on March 30, 1987, by the Uttar Pradesh State Government. This appointment followed an advertisement and a selection process under the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985. Siraj Ahmad joined the Agra Development Authority on April 8, 1987. While in service, he obtained a B.Sc. Engineering degree from Aligarh Muslim University on June 8, 1987. He then communicated his enhanced qualifications to the authorities, seeking consideration for promotion to Assistant Engineer under Rule 24(3) of the said Rules.

The State Government sought information regarding Junior Engineers with Bachelor of Engineering or A.M.I.E. degrees on September 25, 1987. The Agra Development Authority informed the government that Siraj Ahmad was the only Junior Engineer with a Bachelor of Engineering degree. Despite this, Siraj Ahmad was not promoted. He made several representations, claiming promotion from January 18, 1995, the date his juniors were promoted. His claim was rejected on April 16, 2015, leading him to file a writ petition that was subsequently dismissed by the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court dismissed Siraj Ahmad’s writ petition, upholding the rejection of his promotion claim. The High Court reasoned that his initial appointment was not made with the concurrence of the U.P. Public Service Commission, thus not counting his prior service before regularization. Siraj Ahmad then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985, specifically Rule 24(3) concerning promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer. The court also considered the principles laid down in previous judgments regarding regularization and the counting of prior service for promotions.

The relevant provision under consideration was Sub Rule (3) of Rule 24 of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985, which deals with promotion of Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• Siraj Ahmad’s counsel argued that his services were regularized from November 23, 2002. As such, the continuous service from the date of his initial appointment should be considered for promotion, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra [1990 (2) SCC 715].

• The counsel further argued that the Allahabad High Court itself had directed the State Government to consider similar cases for promotion in Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. [Writ Petition No. 3421 of 1996], where it was held that Junior Engineers with a B.E./A.M.I.E. degree should be considered for promotion after completing 10 years of service.

• It was also submitted that the High Court had modified its order in the case of Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, holding that he became eligible for promotion as soon as he obtained the A.M.I.E. qualification in 1993 and that if any junior was promoted, then he too was eligible for promotion from the same date with consequential benefits.

• The counsel emphasized that the same judge who ruled in favor of Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi was also part of the bench that rejected Siraj Ahmad’s petition, creating an inconsistency.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel argued that the appointment of Siraj Ahmad was illegal because it was not made with the concurrence of the U.P. Public Service Commission, as required by the rules. Therefore, his service prior to regularization should not be considered for promotion.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant’s prior ad-hoc service as a Junior Engineer should be counted for promotion to Assistant Engineer after his regularization, despite the initial appointment lacking formal concurrence from the U.P. Public Service Commission.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principle laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra [1990 (2) SCC 715]* that continuous officiation after an appointment made by following the rules for substantive appointments should be counted for seniority.
• The Supreme Court followed State of M.P. and ors. vs. Lalit Kumar Verma [(2007) 1 SCC 575]* to distinguish between irregular and illegal appointments.
• The Supreme Court considered Secy., State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 17]* which laid down the principles against regularization of illegal appointments.
• The Supreme Court followed State of Karnataka and Others vs. M. L. Kesari and Others [(2010) 9 SCC 247]* which stated that an exception to the general principles against regularization if the employee has worked for 10 years or more on a sanctioned post, and the appointment is irregular but not illegal.
• The Supreme Court followed the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. [Writ Petition No. 3421 of 1996]* and stated that the appellant was similarly circumstanced.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments. The Court noted that the appellant’s appointment was made after a proper selection process, and he possessed the necessary qualifications. The only flaw was the lack of formal concurrence from the U.P. Public Service Commission, which the Court deemed an irregularity rather than an illegality. The Court also highlighted the principle that continuous service should be counted for seniority and promotion, especially when the initial appointment was made through a competitive process and the employee continued to serve until regularization.

The Court also considered the fact that the Allahabad High Court itself had previously ruled in favor of a similarly situated employee, Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, which demonstrated an inconsistent approach. The Court aimed to ensure equitable treatment for all employees who had been appointed through a proper selection process and had served continuously.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that the lack of concurrence from the U.P. Public Service Commission made the appointment illegal. Instead, it was deemed an irregularity. The court emphasized that the appellant’s appointment was made after a proper selection process and that he possessed the required qualifications. The court also noted that the appellant had served continuously until his regularization, which should be considered for promotion.

The Supreme Court also considered the Allahabad High Court’s decision in the case of Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, where the High Court had directed the State Government to consider the case of similarly placed employees for promotion. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had taken a different view in the present case, which was not justified.

The court quoted from the Constitution Bench judgment in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association:

“When the cases were taken up for hearing before us, it was faintly suggested that the principle laid down in Patwardhan case was unsound and fit to be overruled, but no attempt was made to substantiate the plea. We were taken through the judgment by the learned counsel for the parties more than once and we are in complete agreement with the ratio decidendi, that the period of continuous officiation by a government servant, after his appointment by following the rules applicable for substantive appointments, has to be taken into account for determining his seniority; and seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for, as was pointed out, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies.”

The Supreme Court also quoted from the same judgment:

“If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.”

The Supreme Court concluded that:

“the appointment of the appellant at the most can be termed as irregular and not illegal.”

The court held that since the appellant’s appointment was made through a proper selection process and he possessed the required qualifications, his prior service should be considered for promotion.

Key Takeaways

• Distinction between Irregular and Illegal Appointments: The court clarified that an appointment made through a proper selection process but lacking formal concurrence from the Public Service Commission is irregular, not illegal.

• Counting of Prior Service: Prior service of an ad-hoc employee appointed through a selection process should be counted for promotion after regularization, provided the employee possessed the required qualifications and served continuously.

• Equitable Treatment: The court emphasized the need for consistent treatment of similarly situated employees, citing the Allahabad High Court’s own ruling in a similar case.

• Importance of Continuous Service: Continuous service is a crucial factor in determining seniority and eligibility for promotion.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The appeal was allowed.

• The High Court’s judgment dated September 11, 2017, was quashed and set aside.

• The order passed by the Respondent No. 1, dated April 16, 2015, was quashed and set aside.

• It was declared that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) from the date on which his junior possessing the Bachelor of Engineering / A.M.I.E. has been promoted with all consequential benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an ad-hoc appointment made through a proper selection process, even if irregular due to lack of formal concurrence from the Public Service Commission, does not negate the counting of prior service for promotion after regularization. This judgment reinforces the principle that continuous service following a selection process should be considered for seniority and promotion, aligning with the principles laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra [1990 (2) SCC 715]. This clarifies the position of law by emphasizing that procedural irregularities should not deprive an employee of their rightful claim to promotion, provided the initial appointment was not illegal and the service was continuous.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Siraj Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh provides significant relief to ad-hoc employees, clarifying that their prior service can be counted for promotion after regularization, provided their initial appointment was made through a proper selection process and they possess the required qualifications. The court emphasized the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, ensuring that procedural lapses do not deprive employees of their rightful career progression. This decision reinforces the principle of equitable treatment and the importance of continuous service in determining eligibility for promotion.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

• Child Category: Promotion
• Child Category: Regularization
• Child Category: Ad-hoc Employees
• Child Category: Seniority

Parent Category: U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985

• Child Category: Rule 24(3), U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985

FAQ

Q: What is an ad-hoc appointment?

A: An ad-hoc appointment is a temporary appointment to a position, often made when there is an immediate need to fill a vacancy.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about counting prior ad-hoc service for promotion?

A: The Supreme Court clarified that if an ad-hoc appointment was made through a proper selection process, and the employee possessed the required qualifications and served continuously, their prior service should be counted for promotion after regularization.

Q: What is the difference between an irregular and an illegal appointment?

A: An illegal appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme and recruitment rules, whereas an irregular appointment is made with substantial compliance but some procedural lapses.

Q: What was the specific issue in this case?

A: The specific issue was whether the prior ad-hoc service of a Junior Engineer should be counted for promotion to Assistant Engineer after regularization, even though the initial appointment lacked formal concurrence from the U.P. Public Service Commission.

Q: What was the outcome of the case?

A: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant’s prior service be counted for promotion to Assistant Engineer, with all consequential benefits.